Download Football Insider 2010, a free iPhone app perfect for Redskins fans. It features breaking news from this blog; player and team-focused daily stories written by The Post's Redskins beat reporters; analysis by the Post's award-winning columnists; and game-day photo galleries to go along with full, updating play-by-play and statistics from each game.

Redskins at the bye week: the defense

The Redskins reached the midway point of their first season under Mike Shanahan at 4-4 - matching their win total from a year ago but knowing they might have won each of the games they lost. Over the next three days, we'll look at each element of the team - defense, offense and special teams - analyzing what happened, and what might come next.

Today, the defense.

What went right: With the new coaching staff's emphasis on increasing turnovers, it would have been disappointing if gains were not made. Such a major improvement, however, was an outstanding development for coordinator Jim Haslett. After ranking last in the NFL with only 17 takeaways (11 interceptions and six fumble recoveries) during the 2009 season, the Redskins have 19 turnovers (nine interceptions, 10 fumble recoveries) in only eight games and are tied atop the league with the Pittsburgh Steelers and Tennessee Titans. The Redskins also have a turnover differential of eight, tied with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers for second.

Cornerback DeAngelo Hall matched the single-game record with four interceptions in the Week 7 victory against the Chicago Bears and is first in the league with six. Under Haslett and his staff, players focus on the pursuit of takeaways in everything they do. Haslett has succeeded in creating a culture in which the Redskins, never higher than 10th in turnover differential since the 2000 season, believe they will have multiple takeaways in every game.

"It's what we do now," Hall said. "You see guys out there going after balls, stripping balls ... just getting after it now. The whole thought process is just different."

Haslett's decision to convert Lorenzo Alexander from a defensive lineman to an outside linebacker was another first-half success story. Alexander, whose four-year Redskins career has been marked by versatility, adapted to the new role better than anyone could have envisioned.

Since supplanting Andre Carter on the left side during the Week 4 victory against the Philadelphia Eagles, Alexander has been a force on run defense while also performing surprisingly well in coverage for someone who has primarily been an interior lineman. Although his role on special teams has been reduced because of his increased responsibilities on defense, Alexander still has had many highlight-tape tackles on kickoff coverage.

The Redskins finally let Albert Haynesworth just play, and the two-time all-pro performer has shown he still can be among the league's most dominant defensive tackles. Haslett persuaded Coach Mike Shanahan to let him use Haynesworth in situations that would maximize Haynesworth's ability to penetrate the backfield, and the nine-year veteran had superb performances in the final two games before the bye.

Not surprisingly, London Fletcher made a smooth transition from a 4-3 middle linebacker to a 3-4 inside linebacker. The defensive captain continues to set a positive tone with his production on the field and steady leadership.

No player, however, has fared better in the transition than LaRon "Dirty 30" Landry. Finally in a system that suits his skills, the fourth-year strong safety is thriving under Haslett.

What went wrong: Growing pains were inevitable in the first season of a new defensive scheme and philosophy, and the Redskins have struggled, ranking next to last in yardage. Opponents are averaging 393.3 total net yards against the league's 31st overall defense. There often has been confusion in the secondary, helping opponents average 280.9 yards against the 30th-ranked passing defense.

Haslett's high-risk, high-reward game plans earlier in the season featured too much blitzing, and the Redskins were burned repeatedly on blitzes during the 30-27 loss in overtime in Week 2 against the Houston Texans. Washington gave up a season-high 526 yards in that game, prompting Haslett to take a more conservative approach in play-calling, which has helped.

Haslett has acknowledged that trying to convert Carter from a defensive end to a stand-up linebacker did not work. Coming off the best season of his career in 2009, when he had 11 sacks and was in on 62 tackles, Carter has not been productive to this point, notching just one sack and getting in on 19 tackles.

And then there's the Haynesworth situation.

Shanahan's insistence that Haynesworth play nose guard in the new defense ignited months of controversy and turmoil. The decision to remove Haynesworth from the "Okie" package (the base 3-4) and use him primarily in the nickel alignment, in which he has more freedom to attack, has provided a major boost.

MVP: Landry. Hall leads the league in interceptions and outside linebacker Brian Orakpo is tied for fourth with a team-leading seven sacks. Landry, though, makes so much happen for the Redskins from multiple spots on the field.

Although tackles are not an official statistic, Landry leads the league with 60 unassisted tackles and has been credited with 76 overall, according to the NFL's Game Statistics Information System and NFL.com.

With seven passes defensed, Landry is tied for 23rd in the league. His interception during overtime in Week 5 against the Green Bay Packers led to place kicker Graham Gano's game-winning 33-yard field goal.

"He might be [the defensive MVP] in the league," Haslett said. "That's brash, saying that, because I haven't seen the whole league.

"Obviously, I don't get a chance to evaluate the whole league, but he's outstanding. He's a heck of a football player. We'll try to keep finding ways to utilize him and take advantage of what he does best."

Highlight: The six-takeaway performance during the 17-14 victory against the Chicago Bears in Week 7. Hall led the way with his career day and stole the spotlight from Haynesworth, who dominated Chicago's offensive line. It was easily his best performance in a Redskins uniform.

Lowlight: Quarterback Matt Schaub's 34-yard touchdown pass to wide receiver Andre Johnson on fourth and 10 late in the fourth quarter of the Week 2 loss to Houston. The Redskins blitzed too much in the game, and Schaub avoided the blitz on the play and threw a deep pass to the left side.

Safety Reed Doughty and nickel cornerback Phillip Buchanon were supposed to have covered Johnson together, but Buchanon released the Pro Bowler too early, and he outjumped Doughty in the end zone for the touchdown with 2 minutes 3 seconds remaining in the fourth. Houston tied the score, 27-27, on the successful point-after attempt and won on a field goal in overtime.

Looking ahead: The Redskins are producing turnovers in bunches, Landry and Hall appeared headed to the Pro Bowl and Haynesworth has recently displayed the form that prompted owner Daniel Snyder to give him $41 million in guaranteed money. If the offense does a little more, the defense should keep the Redskins in playoff contention until the end.

Seems right to me. I know we can't count on the impressive turnover margin forever, but it's also clear that they've become more effective as a unit as they've swapped players around. Moore getting his knee a little more rest might be key.

+Man, not to continue talking about next year...but, I was looking at some highlights of AJ Green and Julio Jones. And I am telling you. Both Kyle and Mike will love to have Julio Jones. This guy is huge, fast, and very, very strong. I think that is what sets him apart from AJ. Julio is very strong, and AJ is not. His after the catch ability is great. I think people are underrating him due to his drops. But Brandon Marshall had the same problem, and Shanny still took him. If we have a shot at Julio, I much rather have him than Vincent Jackson.

So you're saying that 5 years from now, the rams and bucs will be saying, "I hate that we drafted J Freeman and S Bradford when we could've had Donovan McNabb five years ago!"

Posted by: MistaMoe | November 3, 2010 10:20 AM

No...I mean exactly what I said. He's better than what will be available in FA and the draft in 2011 (at least initially).

One or more of the QBs in the '11 draft may be better. But I doubt they'll be better in 2011. If you absolutely HAVE to get one, go for it. Just keep 'em on the bench a year or two and get some mileage out of McNabb since you already gave up two picks to get him (or let him take the beating behind this bad line. However you choose to view it).

All I'm saying is that it's insane to burn two picks on McNabb, let him walk, then burn a 1st round pick on a rookie that probably won't start right away anyhow. Dedicating that many resources to a single position when you have as many holes as we have is retarded.

Not sold on what Austin can do this year to change the direction of the offense. I'd rather Banks getting more playing time on offense. Use him creatively to create mismatches for Banks himself and others.

All I'm saying is that it's insane to burn two picks on McNabb, let him walk, then burn a 1st round pick on a rookie that probably won't start right away anyhow. Dedicating that many resources to a single position when you have as many holes as we have is retarded.

Not sold on what Austin can do this year to change the direction of the offense. I'd rather Banks getting more playing time on offense. Use him creatively to create mismatches for Banks himself and others.

Posted by: TWISI | November 3, 2010 10:41 AM |

now that's music to me ears. get banks in some open space and watch the TD meter go off.

I think this evaluation of the defense is pretty soft, considering they are ranked right at the bottom of the league. They have been exploited by a rookie QB and a second year QB, they continue to use schemes that get them beat by the other team's marquee player, eg Andre and Calvin Johnson, and they can't seem to get off the field in the fourth quarter.

LB play has been weak at best. Coverage has been a disaster. They are outcoached on a weekly basis, the latest being sunday. Then there is the whole needless AH drama.

All I'm saying is that it's insane to burn two picks on McNabb, let him walk, then burn a 1st round pick on a rookie that probably won't start right away anyhow. Dedicating that many resources to a single position when you have as many holes as we have is retarded.

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 3, 2010 10:40 AM

Co-sign.

Posted by: Alan4 | November 3, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Co Co-sign.

This is the same reasoning most of us had behind wanting to keep JC around. Stop dumping resources into QB when you're obviously not very good at picking QBs. Fill the other holes first and see what the draft and or free agency gives you. Don't force the issue at QB.

If we have a shot at Julio, I much rather have him than Vincent Jackson.

Posted by: roccoskins | November 3, 2010 10:38 AM

I don't know how the preliminary draft predictions are looking, but to be in position to get Julio Jones, don't we need to do a lot of losing in the second half of the season? I agree he's going to be a great pro, but I'm guessing the front offices of the bad teams think so too. I'm hoping we're picking way too late in the first round to even have a chance at him.

"But to me, the sand has run to the bottom of his professional hour glass."

Moe,

do you really believe McNabb fell off a professional cliff in 1 year? Or is it possible his teammates are a major reason for the dropoff? Have you noticed the improvement in our former QBs performance since his new O-line is protecting him better?

Guys, Randy Moss is not a bad teamate. He is gonna be motivated, becuase he wants another big contract next year. He likes to win. He can play. Bring him in. Just don't feed him any fancy food, cause he may yell at you. Take him to the Green Turtle or smthn....

Maybe, but it's been a long time since I bought in to any political debate and I've sat here and watched all these d0uchebags take their little potshots time and again without a word. Now it's my turn...SJK 'em.

did you happen to watch him continually dog it, and jog during the game last week, the game in which his team lost, and immediately afterwards Moss professed his love for the team that he was traded from?? Thats a good teammate??

he wants to run 1 route, and nothing else...sorry that dog wont hunt...

I don't know how the preliminary draft predictions are looking, but to be in position to get Julio Jones, don't we need to do a lot of losing in the second half of the season? I agree he's going to be a great pro, but I'm guessing the front offices of the bad teams think so too. I'm hoping we're picking way too late in the first round to even have a chance at him.

Posted by: MColeman51 | November 3, 2010 10:59 AM

I would hope we would continue to address the deplorable O line situation before we pull something like that.

Guys, Randy Moss is not a bad teamate. He is gonna be motivated, becuase he wants another big contract next year. He likes to win. He can play. Bring him in. Just don't feed him any fancy food, cause he may yell at you. Take him to the Green Turtle or smthn....

Posted by: roccoskins

Agree with everything you just said except for the first thing you just said.

The thing you have to ask yourself is, are you trying to be good just in '11 or are your trying to find a guy who''l be your leader over the next 5 to 10 years.

And if the second part of that question is more important, then you draft the guy that has had the most starts in an NFL-lite system.

That's Ponder, Mallett, Stanzi, Luck, and Locker: my money says that any of these kids can start day one.

Cam Newton is the best of the bunch, but he would have to sit as he hasn't had the starts you'd like to see.

Listen: I have nothing but respect for McNabb.

But to me, the sand has run to the bottom of his professional hour glass.

I'd rather move on.

Posted by: MistaMoe | November 3, 2010 10:52 AM

Gotcha Moe.

Seems like the place we disagree is that ANY of the players you named are gonna be good enough to be Week 1 starters. I seriously doubt that. If we use history as a guide (weren't you the one crowing about how you spot "trends"?), an ENTIRE class of 1st round QBs doesn't do well uniformly. One or two excel, a couple are middle of the road, a couple are flat out bad. The class of '83 is the one everyone looks to, but that was literally a once in a lifetime kinda deal. Even if the '11 class measures up to their '83 predecessors, I doubt all 5 or 6 guys end up being guys you can win championships with.

The point is this: you play the hand you're dealt. Shanahan can't change the rules as he goes along...if you're gonna go for the "win now" formula, stick with it. If you're gonna rebuild, stick with it. Trading picks for vets tells me they wanna win now...so if you wanna win now, roll with McNabb for the next 3-5 years. If you wanna rebuild, dump him and get your rookie.

I just wish that if he was gonna try and tinker with a guy's mechanics and make him into "his guy", then he should have traded up to get Bradford instead of getting an 11 year vet. If you wanna start from scratch, it's crazy to do that with a 33-year-old that's already productive the way he is...

I think it depends on where we pick in the 1st round and whether we can get anymore picks than what we have right now. Our holes are too numerous to fill in one more offseason, so you have to ask yourself - if we are in position to get a QB of the future in this draft do we go for it and let him warm the bench for a year? I say yes, because we can get one or more starting OL in the rest of the draft, and some help with the other positions. Then in 2012 we draft a NT (there aren't any studs in this draft), C/G, LB, and FS, if not a decent CB. Then we will have a complete team in 2012 where hopefully at the beginning of the season or part way through, the 2011 QB draft choice will be ready to go. The 2013 draft can be used to fill any remaining holes and go deep into the playoffs.

If we can get rid of McNabb for anything close to what we paid for (assuming he still sucks in the 2nd half of the season) then we can start sexy rex and get a good draft position for 2012 while the rookie learns from the bench. It will be flat out awful to watch, but if we can have a real breakout season in 2012, I'd be willing to endure it. After all, we've endured dysfunction to the max for more than a decade. If putting a "bad" (or horrible) QB on the field means we will be better the year after than the alternatives, I'm willing to endure.

I am just sick of giving away draft picks when the players we give up for them won't stay long enough to be worth it.

I don't know how you can evaluate the defense without at least mentioning Doughty's poor pass coverage skills, Kemoeatu's Gumby legs in the first half of the season and Moore's poor tackling. Granted, Moore is getting better, but he made some big misses when he first came back from injury. Kemoeatu has played less and that has helped him. Doughty... well, Doughty is what he is: use him pass coverage at your own peril.

On of my biggest disappointments with the defense, however, has nothing to do with the guys who have played. It's a guy that hasn't played that is bothering me: I cannot believe Barnes hasn't been in any ball games. I thought the Skins had a future starting corner when they drafted him, and yet, we don't see him play and we get to see Buchanon make his share of mistakes in coverage week after week. WTF??? Buchanon has had three good plays this season but has blown coverage on two touchdowns and has given up a lot of yardage through penalties and shoddy coverage. Tryon and Barnes both got on the field last year and I tell you, they had fewer mistakes in the nickel package than Buchanon.

I would hope we would continue to address the deplorable O line situation before we pull something like that.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | November 3, 2010 11:06 AM

I want to go heavy in interior linemen too, but if by chance and miracle Julio Jones is available when we're up...we HAVE to take him. Have you gotten a chance to see Alabama this season? He's special. Moot point anyway. He'll be gone and we will take a solid center or guard (hopefully) late in Rd. 1.

I just wish that if he was gonna try and tinker with a guy's mechanics and make him into "his guy", then he should have traded up to get Bradford instead of getting an 11 year vet. If you wanna start from scratch, it's crazy to do that with a 33-year-old that's already productive the way he is...

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 3, 2010 11:10 AM

That's my source of frustration as well with this situation. They (Shannys) knew the qb the were trading for.

If we can get rid of McNabb for anything close to what we paid for (assuming he still sucks in the 2nd half of the season) then we can start sexy rex and get a good draft position for 2012 while the rookie learns from the bench...

Posted by: JesusFreakKaren | November 3, 2010 11:13 AM

Are you friggin' kidding me here? For you "trade McNabb" people, let's be real about this:

-We have no idea if the franchise tag will be an available option. There's no guarantee that'll be in the next CBA...or that there will be a next CBA by the time this decision has to be made. Assuming there will even be an opportunity to trade McNabb is presumptive at best.

-Even IF we have the ability to trade McNabb, who's gonna want him? If we don't want him, it's because he's been mediocre/bad these last 8 games. AT BEST we can hope for a conditional mid-round pick. So AT BEST, you'll get back one of the two picks you spent. Expecting anything more than that is crazy.

-If McNabb plays well down the stretch you keep him, not trade him. It means he's got a hold of the system and he's got the goods to mask the obvious deficiencies we have with the OL/WRs. If you have a guy that makes you good in spite of yourself, you KEEP HIM...regardless of what his birth certificate says.

Again--burning a 1st round pick on a rookie after giving up a 2nd and a 4th for McNabb is way too much for one spot. If you're using that many picks for one guy you wanna tinker with, you might as well have traded up for Bradford...

After weeks of poor play by Buchanon, no production from Galloway, and awful play from OG (forgot his name but Shan boy) And hear the coach talk about how they play well I am starting believe that Shan only wants players around him that don't challenge him and just simply yes men.

Ask all his teamates in New England and they will say, he is not a bad teamate.

Anyways. Julio Jones will be available in the early 20's in next years draft. Why? Becuase a lot of QB's will be taken early. AJ Green will be taken early, maybe 2 running backs will be taken early. D linemen, and a few OT's. People are gonna underrate Julio becuase of his drops. People did that with Brandon Marshall. But Julio is like a faster Brandon Marshall, and maybe even bigger. Shanny took a chance of Brandon when he slid to the 2nd round. I think our first target will be to get Julio Jones.

Its the bye week we don't have anything else to talk about!!!! At least not until maybe 4:05pm or so....

That's my source of frustration as well with this situation. They (Shannys) knew the qb the were trading for.

Posted by: TWISI | November 3, 2010 11:16 AM

Exactly...if internet bloggers and random slappies are privy to the knowledge that McNabb is a joker who likes to keep it light, then certainly a little due diligence on Shanahan's part would have uncovered the same conclusion. If they didn't like that, they shouldn't have traded for him. Draft picks are a precious commodity...especially in a draft as deep as the 2010 draft. To give up picks for a guy you weren't SURE about is reckless.

My sincere hope is that this is just a classic case of miscommunication and that this is a motivating force for McNabb to come back after the bye dialed in and ready to roll better than before. If he plays well and we beat the Eagles on national TV, all this talk is moot. I just think it's in the nature of our punch drunk fanbase to assume the worst...

Brown - you didn't read the entire paragraph (or decided not to comprehend it). There were two "ifs" that needed to be satisfied to give McNabb away - he sucks in the second half of the season, which takes away your third paragraph, and that we needed to get decent value for him, which takes away your second paragraph. With those two paragraphs out of your argument you have nothing left. Please read (and comprehend) before you react. Notice also, I'm not advocating for benching McNabb right now, or releasing him so we completely throw away our picks. That would be the true lunacy, aside from getting McNabb in the first place, but what's done is done.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.